Norman E. Doyle

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the problem is quite clear. We see some of the stumbling blocks that members throw up in dealing with this problem. They keep playing politics with people in poverty and that is not what the poor want. They do not want members criticizing each other for policies past and present. They want members to make a commitment to deal with the problem in a real and very substantive way.

Yes it is very important to have a balanced budget. We all know that. Through that we can bring in policies to eliminate poverty in this country. However, the government has not done that. The budget is balanced and the government again has made no commitment to the poor, except to appoint a minister for the homeless and not give the minister the resources she needs to deal with the problem.

Let me give the hon. member some statistics that were passed along to me by Statistics Canada. Back in 1987 the average amount of expenditure for a Canadian family was $33,000. The average income was $45,000. In 1987 a family had a $12,000 surplus of disposable income that they could use to help their children. Families needed that money. In 1997 expenditures for a family were $42,000 while the income was $41,900. This means that the average family is $100 in the hole instead of having a $12,000 surplus as they did back in 1987.

Yes, we have balanced the budget, but at what cost? We have balanced the budget on the backs of the poor. We have balanced the budget on the backs of the working poor. The government has to come to grips with that.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, we would fools not to agree with the hon. gentleman that moneys invested today in youth and in society in general will certainly pay dividends in the future.

The hon. member talks about governments past and the fact that we are all to blame for the child poverty issue and the issue of poverty in Canada. I could not agree more. Members will never hear me defend any government, whether it is federal or provincial, on adequately addressing the poverty issue over the last 10 or 15 years in particular. They certainly have not.

Let me point out to the hon. member that the number of children living in poverty was actually going down right up until 1984. Since 1984 the problem has become more acute.

We can all blame governments past, the Mulroney government, the Trudeau government, or the current government for where we stand today on child poverty, but I do not think we solve the issue in that way. The numbers of people who have been forced on to the welfare rolls because of the EI policies the government has adopted is very evident.

As members of the task force go across the country many people come before us and say that a number of years ago they worked for seven or eight months of the year and they would get unemployment insurance. Employment programs have been all but eliminated. Thirty per cent of the people who become unemployed are the people who actually receive unemployment insurance. These people are forced on to the welfare rolls and the whole cycle of poverty is compounded even more.

Yes, governments have done a lot of damage, but I knowledge that they have also done a lot of good.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite will have a chance to have a go at this as well.

The hon. member can criticize me all he wishes for making these points, but we have quite a number of women today, single mothers and others, who are living in poverty. Single mothers in particular have more difficulty getting jobs, and the jobs they do get are very often low paying. We hear that every day as our committee travels to various provinces. The lack of adequate low-cost day care services for instance is a real problem for some single mothers because it hinders their ability to seek and get employment.

Fully 92% of single mothers in Canada under the age of 25 live below the poverty line. That is a damning statistic. Getting single mothers out of poverty through education is very difficult. It is increasingly difficult as a result of provinces cutting off social assistance to single parents enrolled in post-secondary education. Every day we hear from single mothers who want to get out of the situations they are in but find it very difficult because the provinces have a tendency to cut off social assistance payments to a single mom who wants to get involved in post-secondary education. We perpetuate the problem by doing that instead of doing all we can to try to get these people off the welfare rolls, into a post-secondary education system and back—

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 6th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words in this debate. When the bill is passed it will mean hundreds of millions of dollars to be used for the benefit of the country.

When I think about the country many words come to mind. I think about quality of life, security, prosperity, freedom, compassion, co-operation and many other things other countries do not have. Generally the very last thing we associate with Canada is poverty and all the suffering and loss that come with it. Most of us simply do not want to admit that the very real problem of poverty exists in Canada. I do not think the government has come to grips with it or wishes to admit it.

Nevertheless, the reality is that for millions of Canadians poverty is a way of life. As the poor become more vocal through various organizations in which they become involved, through the media and anti-poverty associations and whatnot, many Canadians come to realize it is a very real problem.

Governments at every level will not be able to ignore that problem much longer and will have to take action on it fairly soon. They will have to do a bit more than actually appoint a minister for the homeless. They will have to give that minister the resources to do the job that needs to be done to address the issue of poverty.

The issue of poverty is a very difficult one, as we are all aware. The government knows very little about the true state of poverty in the country. We have not developed an effective way to identify and to measure poverty. We have yet to identify all the causes of poverty. We still do not have an effective and complete strategy to eliminate poverty.

The issue is also complicated due to the large number of effects it has on many different social classes, whether it be women, children, the working poor, the unemployed poor, aboriginals or disabled persons. I am not sure if the bill does anything to address the plight of many people who are well below the poverty line.

We are all very much aware that back in November 1989 the leader of the NDP, Ed Broadbent, introduced the following motion in the House of Commons:

That this House express its concern for the more than one million Canadian children currently living in poverty and seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.

Jean Charest, the minister of state for fitness and amateur sport and the deputy leader in the House at the time, moved at the end of the debate that the motion be supported unanimously by the House of Commons, and it was.

I want to read some of the positions of members of the PC Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party at the time on the whole issue of child poverty. In the speech to the motion Perrin Beatty of the PC Party, then minister of national health and welfare, said:

We do not have to be afraid of the future. We have a prosperous and a dynamic economy which if managed well promises to improve even further. We have the tools to reduce the number of children living in poverty as we have for each and every year since 1984.

In a few short weeks we will be entering the new decade. This is a good time for us to reflect on the very real progress that we have made in the past and to think about what accomplishments we want to make in the 1990s. Any society that cares about its future must care about the plight of its children today. This government demonstrated that commitment and I can assure you it will continue to demonstrate that commitment.

In his speech introducing the motion Ed Broadbent of the NDP showed that child poverty had increased. He stated:

From 1980 to 1986, when the child population actually fell by some 4%, the number living in poverty in Canada at precisely the time that the rest of us were doing better increased by 13.4%.

He also pointed out that the rate of poor children in poor health is 150% higher than the national average.

Mr. Broadbent went on to explain how the cycle of poverty works. He said:

There is now in Canada and the United States a vicious cycle involving the poor. Poor kids are undernourished, underhoused, more sickly, more poorly educated, get the second or third rate jobs, and when the lay-offs come, they get laid off first. The same young people marry each other and then they produce children, statistically out of proportion, who go through the same cycle. We have a cycle of poor food, poor housing, poor clothing, poor education, poor jobs, poor spouses, more poor kids. This is a vicious cycle. It is a vicious cycle that can be broken and it is a vicious cycle that must be broken in this Canada of ours.

Ed Broadbent said that back in 1989.

This quote is truly the most interesting quote of all. It is a statement made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs who was in opposition at that time. In speaking to that motion, he said:

I never hear the Minister of Finance talk about the real deficit in this country, which is those one million kids in poverty. That is the real lack of investment. That is the real tragedy. In 10 years from now those are the children who should be tomorrow's teachers, business people, politicians or journalists. They will never get there because they will never get up to the starting line. When you have a million children living in poverty, that is the greatest lack of investment. That is the greatest deficit we face. That is the problem, and there is nothing being done to address that kind of issue.

This was the now Minister of Foreign Affairs who said that the greatest deficit we had in this country were our poor children.

Even though the child poverty motion was unanimously supported by all members from all parties in the House of Commons, very little has been done to take action on that problem. Even today we realize the governments of the past, and today's government in particular, have really not taken any action on that issue.

If we were to read the quotes with a few modifications to names and dates, we would realize that the words of a decade ago apply to the situation we face today. In fact the number of Canada's poor has increased and their condition has worsened.

When that motion was passed back in 1989, we had one million children living in poverty in Canada. Today, 10 years later, when we pledged that we would eliminate child poverty in this country by the year 2000, we do not have one million children living in poverty, we now have 1.5 million children living in poverty in Canada. That is a real tragedy and one for which all of us have to bear responsibility. It is not only this government but governments of the past that have to bear responsibility for the very glaring tragedy we have in our society.

Poverty statistics are debatable and very controversial, especially in Canada. An example of that is Statistics Canada's low income cut-off. The low income cut-off is the most widely used formula to establish a poverty line in Canada, even though Statistics Canada says it should not be used as the poverty line. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the statistics are useless and that we should not be using them. Most of them are very accurate. The point is that we need to develop a clear and widely accepted formula for measuring poverty in Canada. Only then, when we have the real hard facts on poverty, will we be able to effectively deal with the problem.

Hopefully, as the poverty task force travels the country, we will be able to, and I think we are, gather all of the good, hard evidence that the government will need to effectively deal with the problem, if it is serious about dealing with it.

There are hundreds of statistics on poverty in Canada. However, we have to make sure that we do not get bogged down in numbers and lose sight of reality. If we only look at numbers we might end up thinking that Canada is not a very good place to live in this world. That is not really true. That is not the case.

With these numbers we can see that there is a major poverty problem in Canada. However, we must not and should never lose sight of the fact that we are doing many good things in the country and that we are a very strong country. That is why we should be able to find ways to eliminate the whole issue of poverty in the country.

The issue of child poverty has always touched a very sensitive chord with most Canadians. The reasons for that are fairly obvious. Children are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. They are helpless and are innocent victims of their environment and their socioeconomic condition. Needless to say, by eliminating child poverty, the aim is not only to eliminate child poverty, but to eliminate all poverty in Canada. Children are dependent upon parents. If we eliminate child poverty we eliminate parent poverty and people poverty as well. One of our goals has to be the elimination of not only child poverty but also parent poverty.

In 1998, the year for which we have statistics available, 1.5 million children were living in poverty in Canada. That is an increase of 21% since 1995, but it is an increase of 60% since 1989 when the motion to eliminate child poverty was passed in the House of Commons. It is a very real problem.

I wonder if the government is aware of the number of people using food banks in Canada. As travel go from province to province, many people have come before our committee to talk about how frequently they have to use food banks. It is heart-rending to listen to not only the unemployed poor but the number of working poor who come before our committee on a weekly basis to tell us their stories of the loss of pride and how they have to go once a month—and in most cases they can only go go once a month—to a food bank in a country that has the kind of resources and riches that we have.

It is a national tragedy that we have over 800,000 people per year using food banks in the country. It is a national disgrace. Forty-two per cent of people who depend on food banks for all or part of their food are children and people under 18 years of age. Can anyone imagine 800,000 people per year using food banks in a country that has our resources and riches? It is hard to imagine.

Statistics for 1994 estimated that 57,000 Canadian children under 12 experienced hunger due to a lack of food or money. We are now living in 1999 and I believe that number has probably gone up to 100,000 children under 12 who are experiencing hunger due to a lack of food or money. The majority of hungry children lived with lone parents and a high percentage of these children were aboriginal people.

As our poverty task force travelled from province to province, we had quite a number of women who came before our us to talk about their problems. Women are struck very heavily by poverty, especially single mothers. We do have a kind of arrogant and cynical attitude in some quarters today toward single parents. People tend to say, especially people in government, “they made their bed, let them lie in it”. We hear that very often, but that is not the way of a compassionate country.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I should make it clear that I do not think the member was involved with me in that debate, but somebody else.

First of all, let me say that we support our role in NATO. We are one of 19 member nations of NATO and we support the bombing campaign that is currently going on. We support our eventual involvement in sending in ground troops, should that be necessary. Obviously we would first support diplomatic efforts being made by this government to ensure that we do not have to involve our soldiers in a ground troop force.

However, I think it is very important indeed that the government lay out what its objectives are with regard to this war. What is the long term view of the consequences involved? What is our strategy, for example, in participating in a naval blockade should the Yugoslavian navy decide to fight back? These are questions to which we have not received answers.

As I pointed out to the hon. member, there is a difference between support for humanitarian goals and support for NATO's strategy, but I think this government is sadly lacking in leadership. It has not yet laid out its long term views and objectives regarding this war and what our strategy would be should ground troops become necessary. When the time comes, we will support ground troops if there is no other alternative.

[Supply, April 27th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, first let me indicate that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for South Shore.

As immigration critic for the PC party, I want to make a few comments and remarks on the human tragedy that is Kosovo. Every day on television we see a tide of Kosovar Albanians fleeing to refuge outside their homeland, leaving behind their burning villages, leaving behind their friends and relatives who have been spirited away or even executed by the Serbian security forces.

Over the past number of years we have seen similar scenes in Croatia and in Bosnia, but the sheer speed and magnitude of the current exodus has riveted the world's attention.

Today's motion talks of a possible diplomatic solution to that crisis. I think it is safe to say that our party would support the motion. It is a very good motion indeed and I sincerely hope that it is possible. In the meantime, I would like to comment on two aspects of the crisis, the refugee situation and the military situation.

With regard to the Kosovar refugees, we are very pleased that Canada went on record as willing to accept and made preparations to take in about 5,000 of these unfortunate people. As a nation whose involvement is driven by humanitarian concerns we could do no less.

The other situation about which we are concerned is our military position in all of this. It is indeed regrettable that we did not debate this matter before our air force was committed to fight. The bottom line now is that we are embroiled in a military conflict overseas. Many military experts feel that this will inevitably lead to the involvement of our ground troops as well.

Our party is concerned about the way we seem to have become involved in this conflict without a long term view of the consequences. I know that war has not been formally declared, but people are shooting and people are being shot.

I need not remind the House that this region of Europe tied down many Nazi divisions during World War II, in a grinding war of attrition, with terrible atrocities committed on all sides.

We have already seen examples of how ethnic cleansing in Croatia and Bosnia came about, with enough blame and enough blood to go around for everyone involved.

We all have every confidence in the professionalism of our armed forces, but I fear that the government has presided over our military being reduced in numbers. As well, it is sadly lacking in the equipment to do the kind of job that we will probably be called upon to do.

We cannot play at war. NATO is now committed. It has very little choice but to follow through on those commitments. In Vietnam, for instance, we saw what it was like to fight a war wherein the daily targets were decided in the White House and not in the Pentagon. The result was a war that dragged on for years. No matter if we call this a conflict or a war, we had best be clear about our objectives and have the will to do what is necessary.

We cannot forget that the Yugoslav leadership will be ruthless in the use of their military and paramilitary forces, so we must not send our soldiers and airmen into harm's way with one arm tied behind their backs.

It is sad that Canada, once a leader in world affairs, a champion of United Nations peacekeeping, is now caught up in this conflict. However, the die has now been cast and we had best get very, very serious about our diplomatic, our humanitarian and our military roles in Kosovo.

The Canadian nation has the stature and the reputation to influence events, as it did in the gulf war and more recently in Croatia. However, those events took place when Canada had will as well as stature. There is no evidence that this government is able to supply that level of leadership. From what we have learned of NATO discussions, other members decided to launch an air war and Canada merely decided to go along.

According to the Prime Minister, if others decide that ground troops are necessary Canada will not be the one to say no. That is not a muscular foreign policy. It is no foreign policy at all. The announcement that we are sending 800 peacekeeping ground troops to the region is another escalation of our involvement. Our possible involvement in a naval blockade also complicates our situation, especially if the Yugoslavian navy decides to fight back.

In the meantime, we can take a number of steps to try to reassert our leadership with regard to the Kosovo situation. The first is to work seriously with Russia, which is the only power with open lines to the Serbian leadership. We must not forget that internal forces in Russia are pushing it to become involved as well. No other nation is better placed than Canada to help Russia find a constructive role, yet we have no evidence that Canada has actively played a role in that regard.

It is a good sign that the Minister of Foreign Affairs will now go to Moscow, but does he have specific proposals to make, say, on the proposed naval blockade or on a UN resolution on the type of international security force that would allow refugees to return home in safety?

Second, Canada is a member of most of the international organizations which will be involved in developing the political settlement in Kosovo when the war is over. We should be at work now on humanitarian and reconstruction issues and on security issues as well. Once this conflict is over our aim must be to have a southern Europe that is a more stable place than it was before this conflict started.

Third, the government should be clear about ground troops. It has not yet been clear on that issue. Short of a diplomatic solution, it seems to me that ground troops will be necessary to finish what has already been started by air attacks. The Prime Minister, however, has been coy on that issue and this undermines confidence in Canada's position on the issue.

Finally, the Government of Canada should lead the way in dealing honestly with the public and the parliaments of NATO countries. This is likely to be a long conflict, with unsettling images and unsettling news. It began with significant public support because the issue was seen as a humanitarian issue. However, once there is killing on both sides questions will be raised about NATO's strategy, especially with respect to ground troops. There is a difference between support for humanitarian goals and support for NATO's strategy.

The best road to public confidence is openness, clearness and truth. The Canadian people are a good people and they deserve good leadership in this crisis, better leadership than we have seen so far. It is time for government to hold parliamentary debates on these matters before our troops are put in harm's way. It is time for government to make clear our objectives and our ways and means of carrying out the various roles that we will have in this escalating conflict. In short, we should discuss our duty, define our duty and fulfill our duty with all of the determination and pride which have served us well in crises past.

In relation to today's motion, I would certainly support continued and vigorous diplomatic activity on Canada's part. I also think it is crucial that Russia, a long time Serbian ally, be involved in finding an end to this conflict. However, any solution must involve the refugees being allowed to return home under the protection of an international and, hopefully, a United Nations peacekeeping force.

Kosovo is burning. Parts of Serbia are in ruins. NATO cannot walk away from what it has started. However, at the same time, no country is eager to get involved in a protracted ground war. Therefore, I am sure that all NATO countries would welcome a reasonable solution that would end the fighting and restore the refugees to their homes and to their homeland.

[Fisheries, April 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the exploding seal population is a nightmare for many rural communities in Newfoundland. The seal population is some six million and growing rapidly. It poses a direct threat to the re-establishment of a viable cod fishery. It makes no sense to tie up boats to allow the fragile cod stocks to rebuild if we do not protect cod from all the other hazards including seals.

Does the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans not agree that the cod stocks need to be protected from a growing seal menace which is rapidly wiping out a way of life in rural Newfoundland?

[Fisheries, April 14th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is no doubt aware that seals are showing up in community harbours where their presence was rare before. They have been found 11 miles up the Eagle River in Labrador feeding on Atlantic salmon. The seals are literally eating themselves out of house and home because they are starving.

The seal population is now over seven million. Would the minister not agree that a larger seal quota is needed, not only to save cod but to save the seal herds themselves?

[Division No. 375, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative Party members vote yes to this motion.

[Division No. 374, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Progressive Conservative Party vote yes to this motion.